Comments about ‘Government shutdown would likely beat up tourism business’

Government shut down is good for opening freedom.

i fnd it interesting that a "governmental shutdown" results in a gate being used to limit access to national lands---there is nothing in government spending that is saved by gating an access road and that includes use of campgrounds and viewpoints---i understand that visitor centers would not be staffed and that the quality of a visit might be reduced if some question was not immediately answered, but that does not mean access to the landscape must be restricted in any way---in some aspects the removal of federal workers might enhance the experience---

Closing national parks ect. is just plain spite. I remember the last time,the Feds put on extra help to enforce the closings. Just childish, but that it what we get.

Atlas what does your statement even mean? Perhaps you would prefer Anarchy? I love all the neo-con slogans and rational that amounts to nothing more than nonsensical statements and partisan rhetoric. Though what is always sorely lacking is anything empirical backing up the barbs thrown at anything not as right wing and radical as they are as well as any rational alternative that isn't on fringe of plain crazy. I am sure I am talking over the heads of many of the neo-con posters on these threads as I am not satisfied with the dumbed down partisan rhetoric and spin that your prophets (and profiteers) of blame and doom Rush, Hannity, and Beck spout with impunity thus ensuring that this is a nation divided forevermore (aren't they all college dropouts?).

Rock of the Marne, you should be aware of the schism within the GOP. The Neo-cons do NOT support a government shutdown. This is the same crew that gave us 4 bailouts/stimulus' during the Bush years. Added almost $5 trillion of national debt, another $45 trillion of future obligations, etc. They love government and scream that anything short of new debt is reckless. They abhor a government shutdown as much as Obama and the Democrats. Those members of the GOP that either want, or at least do not mind a shutdown are generally anti-Neo-con. They are simply tired of the debt and constant growth of government.

As for talking heads, they don't talk but scream.

This article is slightly misguided. There are many, many business that benefit from government largess. They are all going to be hit by a government shutdown. We should keep in mind though that the Feds are not going to be entirely shut down. The GOP is going to approve a series of rolling, spending resolutions that provides just enough to keep essential services going. Likely national parks will not be considered essential though.

I am with rnoble...

Why *close* the "peoples" land when you shut-down government.

Sure, I can see the visitors center closed. I can see a reduction in services... But it is *our* land to begin with...

Why in the world would anyone think that it is a good idea to shut-down our access to land that is *ours* to begin with.

As I see it, it is *our* land, and we *allow* the government to be stewards over the land according to rules *we* set... I am pretty sure that is how it is supposed to work in a free society and representative republic...

This whole paying the government to visit land that is supposed to be ours in the first place kind of irks me. Our taxes are insane, then when you go to use land that is supposedly ours to begin with, some government worker is asking for more money...

Then, when the government workers leave, they lock the gates to keep *us* out... Like it is *their* land they are the gatekeepers to...

We are the gatekeepers to our land. Full-stop.

Rock of the Marne would have you believe that you can only participate in public discourse if you have a college degree.

Typical liberal.

The hyper-liberal-left in the US would have you believe that we are in some sort of unique position right now in our country with folks exercising their guaranteed rights of free-speech.

The truth is, dialogue, including disagreeing dialogue is healthy in a representative republic.

It is healthy in a free society to have divergent points of view... But that goes to the very core of why liberals don't like healthy divergent points of view... They know dialogue (including disagreeable dialogue) is the foundation of a free society.

What does that tell you about why the far, far left does not like healthy dialogue...

It is healthy to have Rush, Hannity, and Beck pointing out the failings and faults of elected officials. The hyper-left in America like pointing out their IQ's and lack of advanced degrees, and lack of pedigrees... What the extreme-left *won't* do is point out exactly *where* they are wrong.

They will attack their pedigree... But that just goes to show how weak liberal arguments are...

I agree that we can reduce the size of government.

That is what I read into atlas's statement.

When we reduce the size of government, we *increase* our "freedoms."

The problem with that ideal, is that there are folks who don't like freedom. They like force and control, and a big, huge government means more bureaucracy, less freedoms, and that is what the socialists in the far, far, left want.

You want to make a tax-and-spend liberal mad... Say "I believe a free people in a free democracy are entitled to basic freedoms that cannot be taken away."

That statement strikes at the very core of the socialist liberal core.

They want freedoms taxed. They want freedoms taken away. They want huge goverment to create huge, expensive bureaucracies that seek to eliminate freedom.

Their goal is *less* freedom, and more control.

So, yeah, I agree with the statement that reducing the overal massive cost and impact of government equals an increase in freedom.

Is that akin to Anarchy? Not even close.

But walking into a national park to go on a hike equals major nationwide anarchy in the minds of tax-and-spend socialist liberals.

There isn't going to be a government shutdown. Speaker Boehner is speaking tonight about it. In his prepared remarks he will announce a continuing resolution (what they always do to prevent a shutdown) while details are worked out for spending cuts. Americans want two things, he will say: No government shut down and reduced spending. Boehner is listening.

The way I see it:

It is either *our* land or it isn't.

Tax-and-spend liberals will say that it is not *our* land. Their argument is that tt is the big governments land. They will say that our rights are not inherent, that our rights are to be doled out to us by huge, expensive, redundant government bureaucracies.

I say that it is *our* land, and *we* get to decide the rules on its usage.

It is not anarchy to say that. Only a leftist liberal would say that wanting to go on a hike in a national park is anarchy.

I say that desiring to use public land while the government is "shut down" is not anarchy.

What do I think is borderline anarchy: the fact that government has so much force, and so much control over "public" land that closing the government will outright hurt American businesses connected to tourism and national parks.

That right there shows where the *real* problem is.

It is *our* land to begin with... We have let "our" government get too big when they can shut-down and hurt American business and tourism workers in one fell-swoop.

Utah belongs to Utahans and it is our right and privilege to share it with the world. Let the Fed shut down if they will. Utah is still a sovereign state. Our governor can and should do what Arizona's governor Fife Simington did when we had a similar federal government budget feud in years past. Simington, against President Clinton's ORDERS, sent his state's National Guard to the Grand Canyon and opened the doors to keep tourism vibrant in Arizona.

President Clinton miraculously found the money to pay federal parks employees when it was evident that Arizona didn't need them. I doubt our governor would have the courage to stand up against the mighty and powerful federal government, but I would applaud him if he did. After all, aren't we better at running our own state than President Obama or any agency within his administration? I sure hope so.

Having read the comments about Government shutdown and possible National Parks closure as in 1995, I have been scared off and have cancelled all thoughts of visiting the Pacific NW and environs in June / July 2011.
Tomorrow I was going to book a 30 day tour of Washington,Oregon,California, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, tickling Montana and Idaho and spending some $12,000+ on the way. I was looking forward to a drive on the scenic byways from the Canadian border taking in National Parks such as Crater Lake and Yellowstone with a 3 night break in Salt Lake City doing the Pony Express Trail (west to east)and the Oregon Trail (E to W.
In the UK, we too have politicians; ours cannot even rescue our people stranded in Libya!

juniling: since you've taken half the space on this forum, may I offer ONE answer to all of your complaints:

"We are becoming a country that believes the rich have
earned their money but the well educated have not
earned their intellectual superiority.
This leads to a nation that idolizes Kardashians.
Joel Stein, TIME, 8/23/10"

I'd say that STARTING with a college education, is a good idea.
Why do you degrade it, juniling?

Lost Tourist: I would go ahead and book with a set of alternate destinations in case of a prolonged shutdown, which is unlikely. We have state parks that rival what is in the national parks and would be national parks anywhere else, and many of them are less crowded and developed. At least for Utah and Nevada, you could find plenty of satisfying destinations that are state run. Let me start with a good word for Snow Canyon state park in the Zion vicinity. Some of the places like Monument Valley and Canyon de Chelly are on tribal land so check with the Navajo tourism department to see if they'd even be affected by shutdown.
As for political instability in the US, the loudmouths get the most attention, normal people are just going about our lives while the loudmouths attack each other endlessly.

juni4ling thanks labeling me a "typical liberal;" nice attack. You don't know me from Adam and I am not liberal or right wing; I'm what I believe most Americans are, moderate. I think both of the "wings' are wacko to the hilt. I am just tired of those on the fringes of both groups using rhetoric in place of fact to call for sweeping changes in this country; with no thought to the damage that may be done peoples' lives. I believe honor and decency of true men demands more than partisan rhetoric; which always has a selfish bent to it. My point is if you are going to make sweeping accusations about something (government, taxes etc. etc.) you probably should some actual empirical evidence or at least strong anecdotal evidence to back it up. To do otherwise would be to follow the 1930s German model engineered by Goebbels; not a wise course.

What a quandry we find ourselves in. First the overreaching government makes most of Utah government restricted land. Then they say you Utahns can't use your own land. Smaller government is good. People and groups that want to take our freedom to explore our own state are rediculous.

KM, were the national parks under total state control, there'd be an Ivory Homes development smack dab in the middle of each of them and a private gated golf resort with holes under what was left of the arches. Snow canyon already has a ring of bloated mansions no one wants around the top as a result. If the state had control, the only additional freedoms in the national parks would be the right to strip mine or build an ugly 10,000 square foot "dream home."

You know when I don't have any money left, I STOP SPENDING. We are in a hole so big and black, the government has spent our greatgrandchildrens money. Maybe our government should stop spending and pay off the bills. Yes, it is that simple.

Government shutdown. That doesnt sound so bad. Lets all go on vacation and throw a party.

A government shutdown could be beneficial and would focus the spotlight on tax and spend politicians.

People who live within their budgets understand that if you don't have it you don't spend it. The same applies to governments.